Klewless Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 I have been wondering about the pros and cons of small vs large throat horns. Below is my set of "misconceptions" on the subject. Parameter Small Large -------------- ------------- -------------- Efficiency Greater Less Hi Freq Higher Lower Low Freq Lower Higher Hi freq beaming More Less I would like to see a good discussion from people who understand these things, including issues I don't even know about. Please educate me! Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJkizak Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 My idea was to install let's say three 1" tweeters and three midrange horns and run them at 1/3 power. This is along the same lines as PWK designed the K-horn for high efficiency---less cone movement, less distortion---. This would also give much more mid and high frequency presense and would make a lot more money for Klipsch and they could even come out with a kit for older K-horns. Just stack them suckers up with a special network to feed them. I love it when my imagination runs wild. JJK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 In general 2" drivers play louder, go lower and don't go as high. They are more efficient than 1" drivers. Dispersion is a function of the horn used, not the driver size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 31, 2005 Share Posted January 31, 2005 Never mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I would add to Tom's post that 2" drivers tend to handle more power than a smaller vc expectedly would. The voice coils in 2" can range from 3 to 4 or more inches in diameter and the associated magnet structures can be quite massive in comparison to smaller drivers. I also find that there is a wider variety of 2" throat (4-bolt) horns available than smaller throated ones, due to the PA/Large format market amongst other things. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klewless Posted February 1, 2005 Author Share Posted February 1, 2005 One of the reasons for the question is that I was wondering what to look for in a horn that would go down to around 200 Hz and knowing that you would have to use a tweeter then go for the larger throat. Am I wrong in this kind of thinking? Maybe something like the tractrix things powered by cone speakers would be another option. I find it interesting that Nelson Pass and his new speaker is composed of paper cones throughout. I believe he concluded that paper has better dynamic reponse than some of the other more exotic cones as well as higher sensitivity. The large tractrix idea could be driven by a Fosgate or Lowther type of speaker (for midrange horn only). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-MAN Posted February 1, 2005 Share Posted February 1, 2005 I personally am not aware of any compression driver that is capable of usable response down to 200 Hz, regardless of throat size. That sounds like a job for a horn-loaded cone driver. DM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Community M4, 150hz horn available Emilar EC600, 150hz horn available Adamson M200, elliptical waveguide available Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 Any of those fit inside the top hat of a Klipschorn without changing the physical structure. What about the horn from Community for the M-200 -- does it fit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 You start needing to take out loans when you get horns that will do that. I knew djk would post about the Community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klewless Posted February 3, 2005 Author Share Posted February 3, 2005 Loans? When we have to start considering that option, guess I bit off more than I can chew! Thanks for the replies. I got into this because of the discussions of the Jubilee. In my little mind going up in crossover between the bass and mid is the wrong direction. Seems to me that going down (to reach the Khorn's best area) would be better. So the Khorn would make a good bass horn if another approach were taken for the mid/highs. Ie. from 200/300 upwards using some good cone loaded driver capable of doing the highs too. This suggests something like the Ambassador. A drawing is in "Loudspeakers, The Why & How of Good Reproduction" by G. A. Briggs, fourth edition that I got from Old Colony Sound Lab. Looks a lot like the Jubilee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted February 3, 2005 Share Posted February 3, 2005 John---JBL makes some mid horns with cone drivers and phase-plugs that operate down below 200hz but JBL runs them up to only 1600hz or so and then cross to a 1" compression driver. They make VERY nice vocal reproduction in hi-fi use, very nice indeed. The arrangement is used in a 3-way with a vented 15" woofer they make, sort of a super-Cornwall kind of thing. My pal Kurt has a pair and they sound great. Check the photo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deang Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 "So the Khorn would make a good bass horn if another approach were taken for the mid/highs. Ie. from 200/300 upwards using some good cone loaded driver capable of doing the highs too." The K-horn bass horn is fine the way it is. A good digital EQ like the one being discussed here elsewhere can be used to lift the sagging response in the lower midrange. In fact, the new AK-4 uses EQ in the LF section to lift the response. I'm surprised Dennis didn't mention the M-200, and chopping down the K-401 to make a 2" throat. I believe that makes it a 300Hz horn. Need the 2328 adapters though, which I'm still looking for. The M-200 has the same sensitivity as the K-55, uses a phenolic diaphragm like the K-55, and chopping down the K-401 means you don't have to mod the top hat. Though I'm not completely sure about this -- but I don't think any network changes are needed to run this setup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted February 4, 2005 Share Posted February 4, 2005 The Community M200 crosses at 400hz and can fit the top section of the Klipschorn and look factory. The other drivers can cross at 200hz and the horns are quite large. The Emilar has a 6" voice coil and an aluminum diapragm. The M4 is available in either aluminum or carbon fiber. The Adamson is Kevlar. The last three are stupidly expensive if you have to buy them new. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Spinner Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 you are going to end up redesigining all components of your speaker why the 200 hz cut over?? home stereo, right? not pro sound ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klewless Posted February 6, 2005 Author Share Posted February 6, 2005 Originally I wanted to know why one would choose 1" or 2" throats. I believe the guys have helped me with that issue. As good as the Khorn is, there is a small (and probably unnoticable) slump between the upper end of the bass horn and the bottom end of the mid horn. So moving the crossover down a bit would allow one to keep the advantages of the bass horn which in my opinion is what makes the Khorn so special. Doing so forces one to change the mid horn to get down another octave. Consequently anything like that would not be a true Khorn when it is all said and done. But it is nice to contemplate viable options. Along the same lines as replacing drivers, changing crossover parts, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djk Posted February 6, 2005 Share Posted February 6, 2005 The main reason for going to a larger throat is to reduce distortion. The K55V is rated to go to 110hz on a bigger horn. HF distortion is directly related to pressure per square unit of area, so a bigger throat means less distortion. HF distortion is also directly related to the ratio of the low frequency cut-off point of the horn vs the highest frequency you are running through it. IOW running a two way vs a three way causes HF distortion unless you also have a large throat. This is why PWK wanted to go to a two way Jubilee with a 2" throat and a 650hz crossover point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael hurd Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Just musing a few thoughts here.... Could you not use two 1" divers on a manifold that bolts to a 2" horn, so that you have less distortion ( pressure ) in the horn throat? Maybe even saw off the K401 and epoxy an adapter to bolt the manifold to, using two k-55's, say in a klipschorn or lascala. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonfyr Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Renkus Heinz has designed some terrific co-entrant horns since the the early '90's. And also a great overview of horn characteristics and design considerations/limitations. http://www.svconline.com/mag/avinstall_renkusheinz_coentrant_transducer/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heresy2guy Posted May 2, 2005 Share Posted May 2, 2005 Tom, Why would somebody want to use a conventional cone mated to a horn when you can use a compression driver (that's probably far more efficient) instead? Simply for the lower crossover point? If so, what would we be talking about here - 200hz or thereabouts? The La Scala uses the K55 down to what - 400hz? So, obviously, the woofer is handling everything from 400hz down then on the La Scala. Technically speaking, is there a problem with this configuration? Would there be something to gain by letting the midrange horn go all the way down to 200hz, and if so, would it be offset by having to use a convential cone driver with a lower efficiency rating (as in the JBL)? There seems to be many possible trade-offs here. -H2G Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.